The Wall St. Journal says U.S. involvement in Libya show "the Obama doctrine" in action, and that it's consistent with what he said on the campaign trail in 2008. It also says it's not a position that sits well with many Republicans:

Facing off against then-fellow Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in a debate for the Democratic primary, Mr. Obama said he didn't want to just end the war in Iraq. "I want to end the mind-set that got us into war in the first place," he said.

In contrast to his predecessor, President George W. Bush, who invaded Iraq in 2003 despite opposition from many allies and Democrats, Mr. Obama is taking pains to receive unambiguous legal authority through the United Nations, getting clear support from Arab states and then letting others—France and Britain —lead the military charge.

[More...]

Military officials confirm that Obama's intent is to keep the U.S. from taking the lead militarily:

Top military officials described the cruise-missile strikes as "the leading edge" of a multiphase campaign against Col. Gadhafi. But the officials stressed that Mr. Obama's goal was to create conditions quickly that would allow the U.S. to step back and assume largely a backup role.

As to our role going forward,

Officials described America's longer-term role as providing logistical support, such as refueling allied planes and provide intelligence from drones.

Sounds like a good position to me. The less U.S. intervention the better.

In contrast, Bush got Congressional authorization for the use of force in addition to UN resolutions and scores of countries in support. Quick draw Obama made the decision on the quick, without Congressional authorization. This was wait, and then hurry up.

He should have sought Congressional and UN authorization weeks ago. Had he done that there is a much better chance of Libyan generals defection and no need for actual US involvement.

By appearing to rule our military involvement, it told the Libyan military that Gadaffi was the likely winner, and so better stick with him. Really bad statecraft.

They have what it takes to take it from here and the EU was the one who sold him a lot of the stuff he would using against his people. It really is their job much more so than ours, but we helped with air defense systems. They needed those knocked out so that they could fly refueling tankers in in a pattern overhead to refuel the jets for enforcing the No Fly. We had what it took, we did it for them, the rest is theirs.

A humanitarian crisis in Libya is also going to affect Europe directly. The geography in that part of the world is such that Libyan refugees in the wake of a humanitarian disaster are going to show up in the doorsteps of Italy, Greece, France and other European Union countries. This is unlike the situation in Iraq where refugees mostly fled to neighbouring countries like Syria, Jordan and Turkey.

When Gaddafi threatened Western oil majors, he meant the show would soon be over for France's Total, Italy's ENI, British Petroleum (BP), Spanish Repsol, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Occidental Petroleum, Hess and Conoco Phillips - though not for the China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC). China ranks Libya as essential for its energy security. China gets 11% of Libya's oil exports. CNPC has quietly repatriated no less than 30,000 Chinese workers (compared to 40 working for BP).

For its part Italian energy giant ENI produces over 240,000 barrels of oil a day - almost 25% of Libya's total exports. No less than 85% of Libya's oil is sold to European Union (EU) countries.link

will stop taking the lead in Libya in the next few days. I don't think my post is bizarre. I think that's a bizarre statement; and I think the decision to say such a strange thing is rooted in the criticism that is coming from the right.

and then they were not going to be in the lead. There is a certain "after you Mr. Jones" quality about this Administration. Now you see leadership, now you don't. Much more political than practical in most cases.

to just do what is needed to stop the slaughter by Gadaffi and not worry about who is taking the lead at this time (which the President never said he would do) Unfortunately political animals like you can never leave politics aside.

just as they did for Korea, VietNam, Cambodia, Rhodesia, Iran, Afghanistan, Grenada, Panama, Yugoslavia, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan (again), and all the other times our military has acted on the commander in chief's orders.

these were incorporated, by amendment, into the constitution. please identify specifically where i might find them. otherwise, be an ass in private.

it was the CoC who bears responsibility, for ordering our military to commit blatantly illegal acts of war. that said, the military commanders bear responsibility, for violating the UCMJ, in following such an obviously illegal order.

even bush, odious as he was as president, got congress to give him an official go-ahead, before invading both afghanistan & iraq. with the sole exception of cambodia (invaded in secret, by orders of pres. nixon), all of the cited military events were, indeed, approved by congress, beforehand.

declarations of war by the US Congress since WW2. Please list all the ones you know of; that'll sure put me in my place.

Additionally, I'll admit to knowing that Congress granted the President in 1973 the legal precedent to order military operations, provided that he reports on the actions within 48 hours of the operation to Congress and limits troop deployments to 60 days. However, as an expert in "illegal acts of war" and the UCMJ, I look forward to you enlightening me on this topic as well.